Letter: Career politicians

"I really think Obama has been pretty true to his core. Like it or not, he
has not morphed much."

Actually.... not completely true. Obama
was most critical of the war on terrorism before he came into office. Now, if
you refer to the most recent Quinnipiac University National Poll on President
Obama's approval, the one area Obama gets well above a 50% approval rating
- even from Republicans - across the board from all demographic groups is his
fighting of the War on Terror. It is the one true bright spot in his polling
numbers, and one that is in contrast to pre-election expectations from either
party.

No one predicted he would actual govern so hawkishly. Just
shows some issues... at the end of the day... are not partisan issues after all.

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

Jan. 25, 2014 1:09 p.m.

"he morphed into what ever he thought he needed to be to win. Can you name a
president who hasn't done that? "

I really think Obama has
been pretty true to his core. Like it or not, he has not morphed much.

SchneeSalt Lake City, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 5:45 p.m.

I'd still rather have "career politician" Bob Bennett as senator
than Mike Lee... plus these careers tend to be more willing to actually do their
job and legislate. People I strongly disagree with on almost everything like Tom
Coburn of Oklahoma fit that category.

happy2bhereclearfield, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 4:24 p.m.

Joe Blow

.....he morphed into what ever he thought he needed to be to
win. Can you name a president who hasn't done that? It is always said, a
politician will be conservative or liberal to get the nomination, then run in
the center to win the election. That is and has been American politics. Romney
just didn't take it to Obama like he could have. His problem was he
(Romney) was a little too nice of a guy. And that turned off his base, which
was the conservatives. So if you think Romney was too far right, then that just
shows us how far left you really are. And, in truth, with your comment that
the Republicans had any say so on ACA, it shows you are a closet liberal/Obama
supporter. Have a good one and I'll read any reply next week.

What do you think the founding
fathers were? They were the most extreme examples of "community
organizers" we have. The fought the status quo. They fought the prevailing
common sense of the day. They were the progressives of their day.... those
fighting for change.... and for the most part... they were the monied men of
their day.

Look at James Madison for example. Born to one of the
largest plantation owners in Virginia, was educated at Princeton University -
graduating in 1771, and handful of years before entering politics in in 1775 in
the state legislature. When he wasn't actually in office, he returned to
work on the family plantation.... or "community organizing". He ended
his public service in 1817 - after 42 years in the public forum. Hardly a
working stiff who part timed in politics. In that day, the working class
couldn't afford to be politicians - sound familiar?

Madison was
not a religious man, and yet he fathered our most important document. Lets
shed these idealized versions of these men.

GroverSalt Lake City, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 2:58 p.m.

The answer here is a simple one that no one has yet suggested: the Democratic
party has to change its name to the Republican party. The net result would be
that voters would be forced to vote for the person instead of the party
designation after their name and it would make it impossible to vote a straight
party ticket!

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 1:45 p.m.

It seems like most of the time we would happy to keep the same person that
services our needs for as long as possible. Recently a lot of people have been
complaining about not being able to keep their own doctor. I'm gone
through doctors every few years for the last 60 years, none of the changes were
due to Obamacare.

Corporations, churches tend to keep the same people
in positions for long times. Voluntary jobs tend to change people regularly.
Kiwanis reelected their officers every year. What would happen to a corporation
that changed out their officers every couple of years for inexperienced and
untrained managers.

If a person was elected to public office for
life, like the Supreme Court judges, and if that person was fairly compensated
and respected, would there be more or less criminal activity associated with
government. Of course the person could be fired for cause, like in the
corporations.

I would like to see a career path for people who would
be in government with a school curriculum focusing on government. We would
elect people based upon their education and experience rather than their lack of
experience.

2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 11:17 a.m.

Irony Guy,You don't have to read their minds. All you have to do is
read their writings. Many of the founding fathers wrote about this concern
specifically. Their thoughts on this are far from a mystery.

If we
have the time to read the DesNews, but not the writings of Adams, Jefferson,
Washington, etc... then we are left without trying to read their minds. But
they actually wrote a lot about their thoughts on this.

===

I agree that they knew about career politicians. But I don't know if
they were all "Career" politicians. Most of them were involved in the
revolution, and had military leadership experience, and had worked in at least
one profession before, during, and after, going into politics.

I
think when we say "Career Politician" we mean people who have never had
a real job outside government, community organizing, etc. Most of the founders
had other professions before and after the convention. Many were elected to
political offices (but went back to their professions after)

Just
being elected doesn't make you a "career politician".

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

Jan. 24, 2014 10:58 a.m.

"How about a guy like Mitt Romney? He would have fit the profile you are
talking about. Voting his conscience."

You sincerely believe
that? I dont.

Romney was willing to "pretend" to be a
"severe conservative" in order to get the nod.

He was not
true to his ideology. He morphed into whatever he thought he needed to be in
order to win. He governed as a right leaning moderate. But ran away from that
history as fast as he could.

I could have voted for the real Romney.
But was totally turned off by the pretend right winger he became.

2
bits

"How is it possible to lock the other party out of the room
when designing that bill... and then expect them to vote for it? and be happy
about it?"

The GOP never came to the table in earnest. They
never had any intention of contributing their ideas to a health care bill. You
and I both know that.

So, why bring someone to the table that is
opposed to the core concept. (the core concept that their party proposed in the
past)

happy2bhereclearfield, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 10:28 a.m.

Joe Blow

How about a guy like Mitt Romney? He would have fit the
profile you are talking about. Voting his conscience. And he was rich enough
that he did not need to take money for any office until the billion dollar Obama
showed up. To run for President today you need a billion dollars. Either you
get it from your own bank account, which limits the candidates to a handful in
America, or you get it from thousands of small contributions. So where does
that leave us? And, I suppose that if some of the Congressman or Senators had
not challanged the new term limit law back in 1995, it would still be in effect.
Just like the pledge to not raise taxes was never challanged in court. But
term limits was challanged in court and we all lost. So where does that leave
us?

Irony GuyBountiful, Utah

Jan. 24, 2014 10:19 a.m.

Unlike the writer of this letter, I cannot read the minds of other people,
especially those of the Founders who have been dead for 200 years. But I doubt
they "never envisioned" career politicians, since most of them were
career politicians themselves.

2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 10:10 a.m.

JoeBlow,RE: "Congress is supposed to operate without even the
"appearance of impropriety"

How is it possible to vote on a
bill you haven't even read? Just because your party boss or the President
told you he have to?

How is it possible to lock the other party out
of the room when designing that bill... and then expect them to vote for it? and
be happy about it?

===

Nope, it's not about electing
Democrats. It's about electing good people.

Too many people
think it's about electing more Democrats. IMO they are wrong.

Same goes for the people who think the solution is as easy as electing more
Republicans.

Both have their problems. Neither party is perfect...
and the other comletelyevil. Until we can recognize that and really believe it
(not just pretend we believe it) and show it in our actions and our votes... we
will have this problem. But Nationally and in Utah.

It's about
electing good people (not just our party's nominee). And not letting them
stay their long. Because Washington eventually corrupts even the best people
(Royal families like the Kennedy's and Clintons included).

Steve CottrellCenterville, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 9:47 a.m.

So let's vote for a new set of political leadership at country, state, and
national levels next time!

UtahBlueDevilDurham, NC

Jan. 24, 2014 9:44 a.m.

Really.... you don't think they knew anything about career politicians?

Lets look at John Adams. He was in nearly continuous political
offices from 1774 through until 1801 - 26 years.

James Madison was in
office of one sort or another from 1781 until 1817 - 36 years

Benjamin Franklin was in and out of public office from 1751 until 1788 - 37
years

And lets not forget Thomas Jefferson who spent the most part of
the time between 1775 through 1809 in either federal or state office. That is
34 years in government.

There is way more myth out there then fact
about the "founding fathers". Saying they didn't believe in being
career politicians is completely refuted by their own resumes. People ask why
education is so important. This is a clear instance where people are stating
things as historical truths that clearly are not supported by the record we
have. The system we have, is the one they designed, good parts and warts as
well.

SG in SLCSalt Lake City, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 9:42 a.m.

JoeBlow hit the nail on the head.

We already have term limits . . .
they're called "elections".

The problem, as JoeBlow
said, is money, particularly in the form of campaign donations and
PAC/SIG/lobbyist gifts. There are a number of things that need to happen,
though, to favorably alter the political landscape in a meaningful way:

1) The ruling stipulating that "money is speech" needs to be
overturned, because money ISN'T speech; money IS influence (largely
corrupting influence), but it isn't speech.

2) The ruling
stipulating that "corporations are people" (Citizens United) needs to be
overturned, because corporations AREN'T people; corporate officers are
people, but corporations are just business constructs that exist for tax
purposes and for continuity of operations.

3) Elected officials, and
their immediate families and staffs, need to be prohibited from accepting ANY
gift or donation from corporations or other organizations, and any gift or
donation greater than $1000 value from any individual (high value personal gifts
from immediate family members would be exempt). Violators of this prohibition
would be charged with bribery.

4) And finally, Congress needs to be
subject to the laws they pass -- no more exemptions.

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

Jan. 24, 2014 9:10 a.m.

Happy.

There is no constitutional law against raising taxes.
However, we had a huge number of congressmen that signed a pledge against doing
it.

That is what I am talking about.

"it's
electing the right people. And from my point of view it's Republicans. From
your point of view it might be Democrats. And that takes us back to where we
are. Stuck."

Nope, I dont think its about electing Democrats. I
happen to believe that there is very little difference between the two. And,
based on history, even recent history, electing Republicans has not exactly
produced good results.

That is why I am so confused by the partisan
loyalty by so many.

Tell you what. Give me a candidate, R or D who
does not take money from Corps or unions and votes only their conscience, and
they will be better than the majority.

Congress is supposed to
operate without even the "appearance of impropriety". Tell me how it is
possible to vote on legislation affecting a company that has donated to your
campaign and not cross that standard.

2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 8:20 a.m.

I disagree. I think the framers of the U.S. Constitution COULD, in their
wildest dreams, envision a creature called a "career politician."

They were very familiar with career/lifetime politicians. They had
first hand experience living under kings, queens, barons, coronets, and a whole
class of people who's whole career was to preserve and cater to these
career/lifetime politicians.

They knew the difference between
"freemen" and "serfs".

That's the whole reason
they came to America and eventually wrote our Constitution.

I
don't think they wanted AMERICA to be ruled by career politicians. They
knew what they were, and knew we needed to avoid that.

Since they
were focused on "freedom" they stopped short of term limits. Since they
were focused on "rule by the people"... they gave us elections. They
divided power so total power could never be held by one man, or one political
party, or even one branch of government.

They foresaw this. They had
first hand experience with career politicians. Their response was the
Constitution. The solution they gave us is... Constitutional limitations on
government, and frequent elections.

Term limits are not needed if WE
do our job.

Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah

Jan. 24, 2014 8:06 a.m.

The People decide who represents them in Congress. When an uninformed populace
spends two minutes to decide how to vote, that populace will always get a
"ring master" who struts around pretending that he and he alone can
right the wrongs that he has helped create.

What is even more comical
are the comments from those whose jobs depend on those career politicians, those
people who have spent their entire lives working for the government, those
people whose jobs would be in jeopardy if that "career" politician were
removed from office. Some of those people even castigate anyone who they THINK
might have voted for a careen politician when they, themselves, eat food
provided to them by that politician, wear clothes provided to them by that
politician, drive a car bought with money that was a direct result of the
efforts of that politician.

The solution is simple. Reduce the
salary. Remove any "pension". Remove the "perks" of office.
Remove the barber shops, the "franking privileges", and everything else
that separates them from us commoners. Let the politicians long for home instead
of longing for office.

happy2bhereclearfield, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 7:55 a.m.

Joe Blow

You might remember, back in 1994 the new Congress (the
ditto head Congress) passed a term limit law. What happened? The Supreme Court
ruled it un-constitutional. So, even if a law was passed by Congress that
denied big money from trying to influence political policy, no doubt the Supreme
Court would rule it a violation of First Amendment free speech rights. These
days, money and speech are essentially the same thing, and I doubt any court
would rule otherwise. If you took away peoples right to assemble and spend
money for their cause you would be abolishing one of the basic fabrics of our
constitution. Like you said, it's not term limits that will solve the
problem it's electing the right people. And from my point of view
it's Republicans. From your point of view it might be Democrats. And that
takes us back to where we are. Stuck.

FTsalt lake city, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 7:56 a.m.

Agreed! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!!

Twin LightsLouisville, KY

Jan. 24, 2014 6:30 a.m.

True about the founders not wanting career politicians.

As to adding
their re-election to the oath? Don't worry. For most, it is already
inscribed on their heart.

airnautEverett, 00

Jan. 24, 2014 6:22 a.m.

Most Ironic of all --

Utah's own Senator Orrin Hatch has been
re-elected what?, 7 times for nearly 42 years.

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

Jan. 24, 2014 6:18 a.m.

We dont need term limits.

We need MONEY limits. Much of these guys
power comes from corporate and union money.

Why does the defense
industry spend $120 Million dollars per year lobbying or $15+ million per year
in campaign contributions?

You must admit, that must be fun. Think
about the power these guys yield when so many want to give them so much.

Take the money away and much of the fun dries up.

Stahl: How
many congressional offices did you actually own?Abramoff: We probably had
very strong influence in 100 offices at the time.

Abramoff: I spent
over a million dollars a year on tickets to sporting events and concerts and
what not at all the venues.

The problem is that our congressmen are
the beneficiaries. They will not clean this up. They benefit far too much.

So, that leaves us. We Americans can demand (like grover
norquist's pledge) that it be cleaned up.

Yet, so many voters
turn a blind eye. Lots even defend it.

Why is this not something
that both R and D can come together and fix.Think of the kind of laws that
would be written (or not written) if our congress was not bought.

Baron ScarpiaLogan, UT

Jan. 24, 2014 6:09 a.m.

It's up to the voters... er the caucus system... to throw this career
politicians out.